[lit-ideas] Re: Movie
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:46:39 -0400
I'm not sure it is tautologous. If someone kills someone in their
thoughts, have they killed? Clearly, they have not. But, if someone lusts
after someone, have they committed adultery? One might argue that if one
is in a committed relationship with, even, say, God, then lusting after
someone in one?s heart but not acting on it renders the relationship
mechanical. Or, lusting in one?s heart but choosing to commit to one?s
relationship with, again, say, God, arguably can strengthen one?s
relationship (mortification of the flesh notwithstanding). I'm using God
but it works the same with humans. There?s a problem here with reality,
don't you think? If something isn't experienced in 3-D, is it real? I
imagine that?s why theology and philosophy are mutually exclusive.
Theology says yes; philosophy says maybe.
The movie situation didn't concern itself with theology. I just thought
the underlying idea of sinning in one?s heart equaling sinning in reality
echoed the struggle with love in reality as opposed to love in the
imagination, in thoughts. The kids in the movie seemed to have flipped the
theological idea around. They considered love in thoughts to be
pseudo-love and more importantly, pseudo-living. I think their problem was
they didn't define love. Defining love as an inevitably short-lived state
of euphoria/bliss would have either rendered their struggle moot, or it
would have deepened their conviction that life is not worth living. I
merely liked the movie when I saw it, but increasingly I realize it has
sticking power. I like it more and more as time goes on. Movie in
thoughts ?
I saw another German movie last night that I liked, called Mostly Martha.
It wasn't particularly substantive, but very nice I thought.
> [Original Message]
> From: Chris Bruce <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 7/30/2006 6:43:55 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Movie
>
> Re:
>
> > Anybody have any idea if there is a philosophical underpinning to
> > the religious idea that if one sins in one's thoughts therefore
> > one has sinned?
>
> The way this is expressed *sounds* tautologous - cf. 'If one sins in
> Memphis, then one has sinned'. But, cf. 'If one sins in one's dreams,
> then one has sinned.'
>
> Taking 'sinning' to mean something like 'willful wrong-doing', how (if
> at all) does the following quotation from Kant contribute to answering
> your question?
>
> 'Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it,
> which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.'
>
> Chris Bruce
> Kiel, Germany
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
